SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 06 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Cate Bonacini:,cbonacini@ciel.org
CIEL Response to US Supreme Court's Rejection of ExxonMobil's Appeal to Block MA Attorney General Consumer Protection Probe
Today, the US Supreme Court rejected ExxonMobil's appeal to block Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's probe into what Exxon knew about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change. The court holds that Healey has the jurisdiction to seek records and move forward with the investigation.
WASHINGTON
Today, the US Supreme Court rejected ExxonMobil's appeal to block Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's probe into what Exxon knew about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change. The court holds that Healey has the jurisdiction to seek records and move forward with the investigation.
In response, CIEL President Carroll Muffett issued the following statement:
Exxon has fought this investigation all the way to the Supreme Court and has lost at every stage. Today's decision means Exxon is out of options and out of time in its fight to keep these documents from public light.
The millions of pages of documents Exxon was compelled to turn over in the New York investigation evidenced widespread malfeasance reaching the highest levels of the company, and they led the New York Attorney General to sue the company on multiple counts of securities fraud.
The Massachusetts investigation poses an even bigger risk for the company because the pool of Exxon's potential victims includes not only seven million citizens and consumers in Massachusetts, but also untold tens of millions more living in states with nearly identical consumer protection laws.
For the past three years, Exxon and other big oil companies have deployed every conceivable procedural maneuver to block these investigations and the ensuing litigation from moving to the merits. Today's decision is the latest evidence that this strategy is doomed to fail.
Happy New Year, Exxon!
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
LATEST NEWS
US Senators Praised for Report on US Complicity in Israel's Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza
CAIR urged Congress "to immediately act on their findings by halting all military aid to the Israeli government, enforcing existing US human rights laws, and supporting international accountability efforts."
Sep 12, 2025
The Council on American-Islamic Relations on Friday commended Sens. Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen for a new report about their recent trip to the Middle East that calls out US complicity in Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in the Gaza Strip.
Merkley (D-Ore.) and Van Hollen (D-Md.) "have demonstrated a rare and commendable commitment to truth and accountability in the face of overwhelming political pressure," said CAIR Maryland director Zainab Chaudry in a statement.
"Their report confirms what Palestinians and human rights organizations have been documenting for years: that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank amount to ethnic cleansing at the very least—and that the US bears responsibility for enabling these atrocities through billions in unconditional military aid and uncritical political support," Chaudry continued.
"We thank the senators for standing on the side of justice," she added, "and urge Congress to immediately act on their findings by halting all military aid to the Israeli government, enforcing existing US human rights laws, and supporting international accountability efforts."
CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group in the United States, previously praised the pair last month for their attempt to enter or even fly over Gaza, where Israeli forces continue to slaughter and starve Palestinians. The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that the death toll since October 7, 2023 is at least 64,756, though experts believe the actual figure is far higher.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "is implementing a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians," declares the cover page of the senators' 21-page report, released Thursday. "America is complicit. The world must stop it."
Merkley said in a statement that "our report details what we saw during our recent trip to the region, including the destruction of Rafah that has reduced the city to rubble, and what we heard from experts in the field about how the Netanyahu government is systematically depriving Palestinians of the essentials needed to live—food, shelter, medicine, and water."
The report—which followed videos that the senators filmed and shared on social media at various stops—states that "the findings from our trip lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Netanyahu government's war in Gaza has gone far beyond the targeting of Hamas to imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians there, with the goal of making life for them unsustainable."
"That is why it restricts the delivery of humanitarian assistance and uses food as a weapon of war," the publication asserts. It also points to the death toll from the Israeli assault and that "at least 1.9 million people, about 90% of the population, across the Gaza Strip have been displaced during the war. Many have been displaced repeatedly, some 10 times or more."
Over 90% of Gaza's homes "have been destroyed or severely damaged," school buildings and agricultural lands "have been rendered unusable," and hospitals "have been damaged or destroyed, forcing many to close or operate under severely compromised conditions," the document notes. Additionally, "essential water and sanitation infrastructure have also collapsed under relentless bombing, leaving much of Gaza without access to clean water or functioning sewage systems."
"The fact that both the Netanyahu government and now the Trump administration are framing their plan as a call for the 'voluntary' exodus of Palestinians from Gaza is one of the most fraudulent, sinister, and twisted cover stories ever told," the report adds. "It is a farce to suggest people who have been subjected to destruction and dehumanization on such a vast scale would be departing Gaza 'voluntarily.' The plan is clearly to pressure Palestinians to leave Gaza by making life for them there virtually impossible."
Van Hollen said that "we hope this report will draw greater attention to these facts both here and around the world," and pledged that "we will do everything in our power to end America's ongoing complicity in this humanitarian disaster."
Under Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has given Israel billions of dollars in annual military aid. Both senators have repeatedly voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) resolutions that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which have increasingly gained Democratic backers but still lack sufficient support to pass.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Says 'There Will Be No Palestinian State,' Signing E1 Settlement Agreement
The plan threatens 7,000 Palestinians with forced displacement and would cut East Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank.
Sep 12, 2025
With a growing number of countries around the world recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday declared that "there will be no Palestinian state" as he signed an agreement to develop a key settlement in the West Bank—prompting calls for the international community to hold Israel accountable for its illegal occupation and apartheid policies in Palestinian territories.
At an event in the settlement of Maale Adumim, Netanyahu was joined by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Construction and Housing Minister Haim Katz as he signed an agreement with the town to develop 3,400 new housing units in the E1 settlement, which has long been stalled due to US opposition.
The Trump administration has reversed that opposition, clearing the way for Israel to link thousands of illegal settlements together and cut off East Jerusalem—which Palestinians have named as the future capital of a Palestinian state—from the rest of the West Bank.
Netanyahu said Thursday that the plan will "double the population" of Israelis in Maale Adumim, which like all of Israel's settlements in the West Bank is illegal under international law. Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal and said it was guilty of confiscating "large areas" of Palestinian land for Israeli settlers.
“We are going to fulfill our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us," said Netanyahu.
As +972 magazine reported Friday, 7,000 Palestinians in the West Bank face forced displacement if the plan moves forward, and north-south travel could become "almost impossible," as the proposed settlement would establish separate roads for Palestinians and Israelis and would divert Palestinian drivers from Route 1 onto a bypass.
The town of Ezariyah, where many current residents travel frequently for shopping and other daily needs, "would become a geographically isolated island," Mohammad Mattar, a member of the town's municipality, told +972. "The road will cut right against people’s homes, leaving no room for natural expansion, and the town will lose thousands of dunams of land. This will force many residents to leave and deal a devastating economic blow.”
Mattar said that 112 demolition orders have already been issued for homes, shops, factories, and farmland.
"Some businesses have already evacuated and cut their losses, while others are waiting," he said. "It will force many residents to leave, particularly Jerusalemites who have built their lives and livelihoods around the town."
On Thursday, the Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now reported that it had prepared billboards denouncing the E1 plan to display in Maale Adumim during Netanyahu's event, but Mayor Guy Yifrah blocked them from being displayed.
In addition to "burying" the possibility of a Palestinian state, as Smotrich said last month, "the annexation led by Smotrich and Netanyahu will bury Israel," Peace Now said.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, presidential spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, told Al Jazeera that a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital is "inevitable" regardless of Netanyahu's agreement to the E1 plan.
Rudeineh noted that 149 United Nations member states have recognized Palestinian statehood, with the number jumping in recent months as countries including France and Ireland have announced their recognition, and called on other countries to do the same to increase pressure on Netanyahu to back off the E1 plan.
"As more governments recognize a Palestinian state, it makes it harder for Netanyahu to proceed with his preferred options—mass expulsion (no Palestinians for a state) or endless apartheid (oppressive occupation with no state)," said Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, last week.
Inès Abdel Razek, executive director of the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, told +972 that with Israel starving the people of Gaza with its blockade on humanitarian aid and slaughtering more than 64,000 Palestinians there so far since beginning its bombardment of the exclave nearly two years ago while also stepping up violence in the West Bank, the recognition of a Palestinian state by individual countries is "increasingly irrelevant."
"The most we can say about the fact that governments choose recognition as a measure right now, in the midst of a genocide that needs to end, is that it is really too little, too late," she told +972. "What governments should be doing, not only as a moral obligation, but as a political and legal obligation under international law, is to end the genocide and the occupation, and to hold Israel accountable."
"For the PA, recognition is a victory," said Abdel Razek. "But if you look on the ground, there is little resembling a Palestinian state... What does exist are Palestinians themselves, fighting to remain on their land and to see their fundamental right to self-determination fulfilled."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Omar Brings War Powers Resolution After Trump Bombed Boat in Caribbean With 'No Legal Justification'
"It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress," the Minnesota congresswoman said of Trump's strike on a boat bound from Venezuela, which killed 11 people last week.
Sep 12, 2025
US Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Thursday, seeking to restrain President Donald Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean after he ordered a drone strike on a ship from Venezuela last week, killing 11 people.
The Trump administration has claimed, with little evidence, that the boat was a drug trafficking vessel that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But that narrative has come increasingly into doubt in recent days.
In a statement on the resolution provided to The Intercept, Omar (D-Minn.) said:
There was no legal justification for the Trump administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean... It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the "sole authority to declare war," but presidents have often carried out military actions without congressional approval, citing their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, particularly since the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001.
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, requiring the president to report military actions to Congress within 48 hours and requiring Congress to authorize the deployment of troops after 60 days.
Omar unveiled the resolution alongside several of her fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and caucus whip Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.).
"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," Casar said. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."
In the days following Trump's strike on the ship, the administration's narrative that it contained members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang bound for the United States has been called into question by news reports and by those briefed by the Department of Defense, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the "Department of War."
After his staff was briefed on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that the Pentagon has "offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel."
While Trump has stated that the boat was en route to the US, the briefers themselves acknowledged that they could not determine its destination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted the president, saying "these particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing."
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that the boat "had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started," which further contradicts the claim of imminent harm to the US.
“There is no evidence—none—that this strike was conducted in self-defense," Reed said. "That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”
Even if the people aboard the boat were carrying drugs, as the administration claims, there is no legal precedent for the crime of drug trafficking justifying such an extraordinary use of military retaliation.
The White House has attempted to argue that the president has the legal authority to summarily kill suspected drug smugglers using an unprecedented legal rationale, which labels cartel members as tantamount to enemy combatants, who are allowed to be killed in war, because the product they carry causes thousands of deaths per year in the US. Legal analysts have described this as a flimsy pretext for extrajudicial murder.
Scott R. Anderson, a senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School and a former legal adviser at the US State Department, wrote for the Lawfare blog:
There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that.
Marty Lederman, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, wrote for Just Security:
Regardless of which laws might have been broken, what’s more alarming, and of greater long-term concern, is that U.S. military personnel crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law."
The resolution introduced by Omar is the first seeking to restrain Trump's ability to launch military strikes against Venezuela. But it's not the first seeking to rein in his wide-ranging use of unilateral warmaking authority.
In June, following his launch of airstrikes against Iran, war powers resolutions introduced in the House and Senate to limit Trump's actions in the Middle East narrowly failed despite receiving some Republican support.
Though specific attempts to rein in Trump's power have failed, the House did pass a bipartisan resolution earlier this week to repeal the AUMFs issued by Congress in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and which presidents have used for over two decades to justify a wide range of military actions across the Middle East without congressional oversight.
If passed, Omar's measure would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Venezuela or launching more strikes on transnational criminal organizations that he has designated as terrorist groups since February, including Tren de Aragua.
García, the Progressive Caucus whip, said the resolution was an effort to begin restoring Congress' authority to check a president operating with impunity.
"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump’s reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he’s lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions,” said García. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and— consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war—reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular